Re: [Junit-devel] why not assertEquals(actual, expected)?

[Janto D. <jf...@jf...>]

| On 2003.01.31, Janto Dreijer <jf...@jf...> wrote:
| > Is there a reason why the order of the parameters to assertEquals are
| > (expected, actual) and not (actual, expected)?
| [...]
| > It doesn't have the kind of dataflow I think in: left to right.
|
| When you do Test-First Programming, it does follow the flow in which you
| think: test, then code.  Expected, then actual.
|
| -- Dossy

Ehhh, I find it difficult to think that way when it comes to a single line
of code. If it's easier for you to scale the TestFirst methodology (even to
writing the tests themselves) then I guess I can't argue with you.

...except if you're lying and actually *do* find it hard :-)

The problem I have is I can only expect something if there is a context to
expect it in: I need to refer to the function before I can talk about the
returned value.

I guess I'm still in the paradigm of "tests are there to exercise functions"
instead of them being a design guide.

Thanks for disagreeing.

Janto